Fluoride in tap water

BernardM

Corruption of science by vested interests.


http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/New/recentimportant.htm

Ben84

BernardM wrote: »

http://homepage.eircom.net/~fluoridefree/belgiumfluorideban.htm

This situation has been taken far out of context. Fluoride is not banned in Belgium and never has been. Nor was it ever proposed. You can still quite easily buy toothpastes and mouthwashes containing it in shops there. They never said or believed fluoride is bad for you, they were concerned that excessive use of fluoride tablets and chewing gum could have health problems.

To put it in perspective, across Europe there are also various restrictions on things like the salt content of foods. However, nobody is trying to dress these up as a 'salt ban' or use them to say that salt is bad for you when consumed in sensible amounts.

I'm not even convinced that Belgium were on to anything anyway. Their findings did not fit in well with the general scientific opinion. These products have been tested and approved for sale everywhere else. However, I did agree with them at the time. High concentrations of fluoride in chewing gum and tablets could, unlike tap water, cause someone to go over the recommended daily limit regularly. I would like to mention, to keep this in context however, that everything we consume has a limit past which the effect becomes negative. Even vitamins. This situation is not specific or special to fluoride because it's 'toxic' or 'poisonous'.

To quote the Belgian health minister in the BBC article linked from that page "These products are used excessively and often abused." Many products have been pulled because they were abused in some way. A number of cold/flu products in the UK were banned because people were extracting recreational drugs from them. I don't think the misuse of a product should reflect badly on the product if it was not sold to be used in that manner.

Anyway, despite being often repeated, the claim that fluoride is or has been a restricted substance in any country is fiction. Belgium banning a couple of products that they believed were being misused and abused does not really support the idea that fluoride is bad for you either. If that's what they believed and the message they were trying to present then the myriad of other fluoride containing products available in Belgium would have also been banned.

BernardM

Toothsmith wrote: »

I don't believe I've ever argued with any of your mass medication arguments.

Weighing up the pros and cons, if I had a vote, I would probably vote 'for'. But that would be just one vote.

I would happily debate the for/against on the mass medication argument, and accept the result if the vote went against fluoridation.

What I really object to though, is the argument being distorted by lies about 'poisons' and 'waste products' and people either deliberately, or through ignorance, just spouting rubbish.

Fluoride does have an RDA - I think it's abour 3.5mg/day.

From that point of view, it is much closer to a nutrient than a poison is it not?

http://www.acu-cell.com/fcl.html#TXTANC7D3921E3A353840

Information that contradicts all that Toothsmith has said in this post by a dentist. (with references.)
http://cosmeticdentistryofseattle.com/procedures/index.html
http://www.smilesofbellevue.com/flouride-effects.html

BernardM

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fluoride.htm
http://www.IAOMT.org/
http://www.toxicteeth.org/

What have they to gain in spouting rubbish. If a website is non profit.

Toothsmith

BernardM wrote: »

Information that contradicts all that Toothsmith has said in this post by a dentist. (with references.)
http://cosmeticdentistryofseattle.com/procedures/index.html
http://www.smilesofbellevue.com/flouride-effects.html

I think we've already established there are people with dissimilar views to me!

There is certainly a market out there treating the people scared to death by the poisonmongers.

There are some in this country

http://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/bed-news/Dentist-escapes-being-struck-off.3576255.jp

BernardM

I feel I should cheer you up a bit after those links.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9T8i4FkNVo

Ben84

BernardM wrote: »

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fluoride.htm
http://www.IAOMT.org/
http://www.toxicteeth.org/

What have they to gain in spouting rubbish. If a website is non profit.

Like heck are these sites non profit!

I found strong and compelling evidence of commercial links in all three within minutes of visiting them.

The first site is promoting a book.

The second site has an extensive on-line shop!

And the third site, if you click on the Dentists/Doctors/Products you'll find a large number of commercial links.

Check out this link to a page within the site you recommended:

http://www.toxicteeth.org/proListings.cfm

I highly recommend taking a look at the payment plans. They'll gladly bill you up to $4,500 per year to list your dental practice.

It took me less than 5 minutes to find this information and prove that all three sites are not really non-profit. It's not even subtle in the last two examples. I am seriously starting to doubt that you're even reading these sites you're posting links to.

tbs624

Cardelia wrote: »

You're right, it does make interesting reading. I like this bit: Once this container had been removed from the vessel, the hazard was considered to be much reduced and, at 1600, the fire service stood down..

The only problem for you is that this paragraph is referring to a container of sodium chlorite, aka bleach. That was considered to be the greatest hazard in the hold, mainly because of the risk of explosion when in contact with acid (which is mentioned on page 18, I believe). You'll note the generic term 'acid' which could be referring to any acid (nitric, sulfuric, phosphoric etc.) so it wasn't the fact that the other container specifically contained H2SiF6, it was the acidic nature of the compound. Hence BPA declared a major incident because of the risk of explosion, not the presence of H2SiF6. .

Cardelia - I’ll make allowances for the juvenile tone within the majority of your response posts, and see if I can help you.

Fluorosilicic acid (used for water fluoridation) is in itself a dangerous liquid - that’s not my classification, it’s the standard classification. ( but you’ll know this ) It is a corrosive: amongst other things, it corrodes steel & attacks aluminium, stone, glass and materials containing silica. It causes severe burns to the skin by contact and gives off toxic vapour with a severe corrosive effect to throat, lungs, mucous membranes, eyes etc. Check your chemistry primer and you’ll see that on contact with metals this corrosive acid liberates hydrogen gas, which is…erm…flammable and explosive.

Even had it been the only “dangerous goods” part of the cargo, why do you think there would be emergency plans put into action?

During this particular incident the fire service was stood down at a number of different times, but let's read the report on from your selective quoting, & look at how events continued after 1600 hours.

Four other containers were then removed to gain access to the damaged tank container…..At 16.55 the fire service was requested to stand by on board the vessel while this damaged tank,containing hydrofluorosilicic acid, was lifted ashore. Two fire pumps from the fire service were on the quay at 17.16. Suited fire crews were standing by on the vessel while the tank was lifted ashore at 18.21. This was then transported to an open, isolated site in the harbour area. Emergency operations were then considered complete and most emergency personnel were stood down.

BPC staff monitored the tank and at 21.15 , they reported that it was showing signs of leaking. The fire brigade returned to the scene and confirmed the tank was leaking

Local authorities were advised of the development Fire brigade stood down at 00.15. Arrangements were made for the contents to be transferred to another container. Equipment was in position at 13.25 with fire crews, ambulance, tech & salvage crews present - pumping started completed 18.15,damaged tank filled with water and alkali All agencies advised and personnel stood down.(btw, the damaged wonderslurry container required 27 tonnes of calcium hydroxide to act as a neutralising agent,)


The ship had berthed on 26 April , unloading began on 27th and the final stand down was on the 29th. Let’s note that during this period those involved included fire pumps and crews, chemical strike crews, paramedics and ambulance, police, health & local authorities, secretary of state representative, salvage crews, maritime coastguard agency(including their counter-pollution and salvage officer), understandably less-than-thrilled stevedores who had to be given last minute training on breathing apparatus. The report refers to the pollution potential, the fact that all personnel in the immediate area & on the vessel should have had protective clothing/breathing gear, and to the port’s lack of designated facility at the time for handling such leakages.

It transpired that both the fluorosilicic acid tank and its butyl liner had had repairs done on them in the past (sections replaced, welding and patching), which were “poorly executed and monitored” and had failed, coincidental to the damage sustained on board. There was clear evidence of corrosion. Surface repairs to the butyl liner had also been attempted by overpainting it with epoxy resin(yep, araldite).

Cardelia wrote: »

The hazard data on H2SiF6 - so what? We've already established that this substance does not exist in drinking water so I'm not sure why you're continuing to refer to it.

Still not sure?

It’s really pretty straightforward that if fluorosilicic acid is to be added to the nation’s drinking water in an attempt to address dental decay in a minority of children, then clearly the chemical has to be transported to the water treatment plant. That means by ship ( as above) , by rail, by road, through places where people live, go to school/work etc. People other than you , who live or work in the areas through which these consignments would pass, may find the Hazard Data Sheet interesting.

If there were to be a road tanker spill, say after an RTA, then the local area would need to be evacuated and those special emergency procedures would have to be in place. We won’t dwell on what happens if the people in other vehicles are exposed to this chemical. Anyone dealing with a spillage of this particular chemical has to be equipped with breathing apparatus, chemical eye protection/face shield, rubber boots, rubber gloves, acid-proof protective clothing. It is illegal to dump the stuff at sea, and spillages must not be allowed to drain into waterways or sewers. Substances used to clear spillages have to be properly collected & disposed of appropriately.

Other readers of the thread are able to follow the link that I posted, and read other reports on the Dutch Navigator incident, plus info on road spills of this chemical, elsewhere. They may possibly come to their own conclusion on the risks, one that is not in line with the views held by you.

tbs624

Toothsmith wrote: »

I think we've already established there are people with dissimilar views to me!

There is certainly a market out there treating the people scared to death by the poisonmongers.

There are some in this country

http://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/bed-news/Dentist-escapes-being-struck-off.3576255.jp

TS - you have criticised those who are against water fluoridation for using emotive language and yet you repeatedly do it yourself. Many would find that hypocritical.

It is obvious that that particular dental practitioner in the link you provided did behave in a totally unacceptable way.

We can, however, trawl the GDC adjudications list and find a long list of pro-fluoride dentists who have also been suspended/struck off for failing to take patient histories, doing unnecessary and/or shoddy dental work, causing patient distress and for milking the funds of private patients and the NHS over considerable periods of time.

There are those who are guilty of malpractice/negligence/bad practice regardless of which side of the debate they stand.

I’d like to think that you weren’t making a cheap jibe, by perhaps trying to suggest that the case you link to is any part of the routine dental practices of those professionals who oppose water fluoridation.

If that were your intention it would be utterly shameful, and unworthy of someone who is a practising dentist.

Toothsmith

tbs624 wrote: »

TS - you have criticised those who are against water fluoridation for using emotive language and yet you repeatedly do it yourself. Many would find that hypocritical.

Either emotive language is OK or it isn't.

If it's OK for you, it's OK for me.

If it's not OK, then stop using it.

Your facts and your science are deeply flawed.

The ethics of mass medication are debateable, but not with someone who constantly spouts rubbish to back themself up.